Jason Baron <jba...@akamai.com> wrote:
> I've done a bit of performance evaluation on a dual socket, 10 core, hyper
> threading enabled box: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 v3 @ 2.30GHz. For the
> simple epfdN->epfdN->pipefdN topology case where each thread has its
> own unique files and is doing EPOLL_CTL_ADD and EPOLL_CTL_DEL on the pipefd,
> I see an almost 300% improvement. This is obviously a very contrived case,
> but shows the motivation for this patch.
Any improvements for non-contrived cases? :)
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -835,6 +835,9 @@ struct file {
> /* Used by fs/eventpoll.c to link all the hooks to this file */
> struct list_head f_ep_links;
> struct list_head f_tfile_llink;
> + /* connected component */
> + struct list_head f_ep_cc_link;
> + struct ep_cc __rcu *f_ep_cc;
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_EPOLL */
This size increase worries me. Perhaps this can be a separately
allocated struct to avoid penalizing non-epoll users?
struct file_eventpoll {
struct list_head f_ep_links;
struct list_head f_tfile_llink;
/* connected component */
struct list_head f_ep_cc_link;
struct ep_cc __rcu *f_ep_cc;
};
But I wish Linux never allowed nesting epoll in the first place :/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
